Implement a dockerTools.buildLayeredImage target for obelisk projects by fabianhjr · Pull Request #697 · obsidiansystems/obelisk

fabianhjr · 2020-04-11T02:38:08Z

This is a rebase (solving conflicts) and squash of #512

I have:

Based work on latest develop branch
Looked for lint in my changes with hlint . (lint found code you did not write can be left alone)
Run the test suite: $(nix-build -A selftest --no-out-link)
(Optional) Run CI tests locally: nix-build release.nix -A build.x86_64-linux --no-out-link (or x86_64-darwin on macOS)

Changes from #512:

ChangeLog Next entry on merge
version became optional with default "latest" docker tag
moved docker build along deployment in readme
changed buildImage to buildLayeredImage for image efficiency/reusability.
use an optional internalPort argument

3noch · 2020-04-11T04:58:15Z

Awesome! We'll try to get this in!

fabianhjr · 2020-04-11T05:03:12Z

Hi @3noch, good to hear. Currently doing some testing with some of the changes made from the original merge request. :3

Though, it will take me some time to really get a feel about this. First time doing anything docker/k8s related. I can say with confidence that buildLayeredImage, nix and obelisk have been really interesting to learn about.

Anyways, here are the layers created for the project I am currently working on (https://gitlab.com/LibreCybernetics/LaTiendita/-/tree/1df40b5d8b984e55588b4ada1ec70db336cb40c5):

fabianhjr · 2020-04-11T05:07:53Z

From initial tests buildImage created a single ~550 MB layer, buildLayeredImage created several images and a ~450 MB one.

fabianhjr · 2020-04-11T05:10:29Z

Interestingly enough, seems like the compressed image is closer to 160MB.

fabianhjr · 2020-04-11T06:56:53Z

And it is live :')

https://latiendita.coop

fabianhjr · 2020-04-13T18:06:01Z

Hi @3noch, on some further testing it seems like nix is packaging obelisk projects alongside thunks (like obelisk/obvelisk-oauth) as a single package and that stops some reusability from happening in the layered docker image.

I tried reading some of the nix expressions but wouldn't know how to separate them into packages. :C

3noch · 2020-04-13T18:22:00Z

Obelisk executables are statically linked. Perhaps that's what you're seeing? However, it's uncommon to layer multiple nix produced Docker images. It's more common, I think, to do your layering in nix and then produce a single Docker image at the end. Nix is better at sharing correctly than Docker.

fabianhjr · 2020-04-13T18:57:19Z

Nix is better at sharing correctly than Docker.

Yes, however this is for deployment from nix, Docker doesn't build the layers nix does as per documentation:

pkgs.dockerTools is a set of functions for creating and manipulating Docker images according to the Docker Image Specification v1.2.0 . Docker itself is not used to perform any of the operations done by these functions.

It would be really neat if for this small project the difference (the project itself) could get to about 50 MB or so. (Though I am not really sure how small or not the resulting single project layer can get)

EDIT: That way space usage in Container Registries could be reduced.

3noch · 2020-04-13T19:10:43Z

If the docker image size is the problem then what we probably need to do is figure out how to minimize our nix closure for obelisk projects. I've looked into this before and I suspect we can make the closure much smaller. That will produce smaller Docker images.

3noch · 2020-04-13T19:16:00Z

+          ))
+        ];
+        Expose = 8000;
+        Entrypoint = ["/var/lib/backend/backend"];


We shouldn't have hardcoded this. We'll probably have to move this nix into the mkObelisk module function so that one can get a docker image for obelisk without assuming default configuration.

Will look into it

If I understood this correctly then any changes on internalPort should propagete to the docker target. It should now not be hardcoded.

As per the entrypoint, if I understand this correctly that location is being grabbed from nix and symlinked in line 172

fabianhjr · 2020-04-13T19:29:05Z

I think the closure doesn't need to be smaller. Maybe dynamically building and having thunks be their own nixpkg would allow nix to split them into different docker layers. (However that is a future nice to have)

endgame · 2020-04-15T00:05:37Z

+To build with a custom configuration, Obelisk's default configuration can be imported and overriden in a `release.nix` file added to your top-level directory:
+
+```nix
+{ }:


A function from the empty set seems not useful. Is there something I'm missing with this?

Don't think so, not that I could find from #512

Documentation on this extra target can be found in nix's dockerTools documentation: https://nixos.org/nixpkgs/manual/#sec-pkgs-dockerTools Co-authored-by: Joe Betz <joebetz91@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Fabián Heredia Montiel <fabianhjr@protonmail.com>

augyg · 2022-05-23T20:44:11Z

@fabianhjr is this still being worked on and wanted?

fabianhjr · 2022-05-23T23:18:59Z

I haven't used obelisk in a while, it is something I wanted though. Feel free to rebase and reopen a merge request.

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch from 9362ccb to 131a593 Compare April 11, 2020 02:44

fabianhjr changed the base branch from master to develop April 11, 2020 02:47

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch from 131a593 to 37f36e1 Compare April 11, 2020 02:49

fabianhjr changed the title ~~Implement a dockerTools.imageBuild target for obelisk projects~~ WIP: Implement a dockerTools.imageBuild target for obelisk projects Apr 11, 2020

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch 4 times, most recently from e517de9 to e73cdcc Compare April 11, 2020 04:55

fabianhjr changed the title ~~WIP: Implement a dockerTools.imageBuild target for obelisk projects~~ Implement a dockerTools.imageBuild target for obelisk projects Apr 11, 2020

fabianhjr changed the title ~~Implement a dockerTools.imageBuild target for obelisk projects~~ Implement a dockerTools.buildLayeredImage target for obelisk projects Apr 11, 2020

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch from e73cdcc to c3673cf Compare April 13, 2020 19:05

3noch reviewed Apr 13, 2020

View reviewed changes

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch from c3673cf to 2936836 Compare April 14, 2020 00:22

endgame reviewed Apr 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

Comment thread default.nix Outdated

endgame reviewed Apr 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

Comment thread default.nix

endgame reviewed Apr 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch 3 times, most recently from e5f18c3 to ee5afdd Compare April 16, 2020 21:39

fabianhjr mentioned this pull request Apr 17, 2020

Release/0.7.1.0 #704

Closed

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch from ee5afdd to 6c6bf0a Compare April 19, 2020 19:09

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch from 6c6bf0a to a7cdad2 Compare April 30, 2020 20:21

fabianhjr requested a review from 3noch May 3, 2020 18:52

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch from a7cdad2 to 09c951f Compare May 7, 2020 19:52

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch 2 times, most recently from cbf0779 to 1938f13 Compare May 25, 2020 14:38

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch from 1938f13 to 13e94d2 Compare June 8, 2020 19:09

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch from 13e94d2 to fa13ea6 Compare June 23, 2020 23:39

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch from fa13ea6 to 9f718bc Compare July 8, 2020 17:59

fabianhjr force-pushed the db-docker-support branch from 9f718bc to 7c12cc9 Compare July 16, 2020 16:16

fabianhjr closed this May 23, 2022

Uh oh!

Conversation

fabianhjr commented Apr 11, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

3noch commented Apr 11, 2020

Uh oh!

fabianhjr commented Apr 11, 2020

Uh oh!

fabianhjr commented Apr 11, 2020

Uh oh!

fabianhjr commented Apr 11, 2020

Uh oh!

fabianhjr commented Apr 11, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fabianhjr commented Apr 13, 2020

Uh oh!

3noch commented Apr 13, 2020

Uh oh!

fabianhjr commented Apr 13, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

3noch commented Apr 13, 2020

Uh oh!

3noch Apr 13, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fabianhjr Apr 13, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fabianhjr Apr 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fabianhjr Apr 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fabianhjr commented Apr 13, 2020

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

endgame Apr 15, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fabianhjr Apr 15, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

augyg commented May 23, 2022

Uh oh!

fabianhjr commented May 23, 2022

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

fabianhjr commented Apr 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading

fabianhjr commented Apr 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading

fabianhjr commented Apr 13, 2020 •

edited

Loading